Ativar ou Desativar Fase de uma Tarefa de Projeto

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with the tool's write behavior. The description adds valuable insights by explaining that the tool fetches the current state, modifies the 'active' field, and sends the full array via PUT. This goes beyond the annotations, but no output format is mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear main action, bullet points for parameters, and a functional note. It is concise and front-loaded, but the bullet list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity. Overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but it adequately covers the input parameters and the internal behavior (PUT operation). Annotations provide safety hints. For a 5-param tool, this is sufficient, though a brief note on the response would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some additional context, such as explaining the meaning of active and the optional nature of executor_id, but this does not significantly exceed the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to activate or deactivate a phase in a project task flow. The title 'Ativar ou Desativar Fase' and description use specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ekyte_list_task_flow_phases (which only lists) and ekyte_update_phase (which might update phase properties, not toggle).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using ekyte_list_task_flow_phases first to see available phases, and explains the active parameter (1=activate, 0=deactivate). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for similar operations, such as updating a phase directly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.